The drowning country: a case of climate migration

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

[Error: unknown template video] [Error: unknown template video]

Things are looking desperate for Kiribati, the tiny island nation in the Pacific. The government is negotiating with Fiji to purchase lands on an island and gradually move their population there, before the rising tides have completely swept away their country because of climate change.

Kiribati has about a hundred thousand people and that may not sound like a big deal, but given the size of those countries (Fiji has 0.8 million people) this looks like a massive exodus indeed. For years the atolls of Kiribati are experiencing rising waters, now a large part of their settlements suffering from periodic floods. Some of the 32 islands of the archipelago are already effectively gone.

If the negotiations are successful, this could be the first climate migration in modern times. Of course, migrations have occurred often in the past between the Pacific islands. But this is something unprecedented in size and consequences, especially in modern history.

The flooding of the islands is not the only problem, though. The saltifying process has brought an enormous problem with fresh water shortages, too. The other problem is that Kiribati does not really have a strong economy, most of its income comes from fish export and some tourism, and they would be in enormous debt if they are to purchase land in another country. But they might have run out of options at this point.

The president Tong is doing his best to persuade Fiji to sell them land on the island Vanua Levu (the 2nd largest in Fiji) where the exiled nation could be hosted. He is smart enough to not opt for advising his people to save themselves separately as they deem appropriate and disperse his nation, but instead he has adopted a national strategy. He says he does not want the Kiribati people to be mere refugees in a foreign country, where they would be seen as second-class people, and potentially suffer from abuse and exploitation. He wants to grant them a decent life. So he has started a qualification program that would raise their skills and make them a valuable asset to their new hosting society, a skilled labour force that could contribute to the Fijian economy instead of hanging on its neck like a burden.

There have been other ideas for salvation in the past, like building artificial islands... but the global financial crisis has made it impossible because that would be too expensive. Now the only option left is to find a new place to move to, before the tides have swallowed their country.

And that is not the only country finding itself in such trouble due to climate change. The Maldives have had this issue for many years, and the 2004 tsunami served as a red light.

Comments

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

and i am asking you what makes it un-natural?

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

agreed. i just find it curious when people consider human influence to be 'un-natural'.

[the-s3ntinel.livejournal.com]

"Natural" in the context of this conversation means "what would be expected to happen in absence of human technology."

(Why don't people understood the difference between arguing definitions and arguing about real things?)

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

its not an argument, just a comment about the naturalness of man.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Hey, and women too! =)

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

oops lol

naturalness of the human species.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I would posit that the argument behind the "un-natural-ness" of human influence comes from the fact that it has brought disbalance to any ecosystems it has touched upon - both through dragging "natural resources" that had previously stayed deposited outside said ecosystems, and through actively affecting and re-shaping the environment according to our needs and desires. We might argue that a lot of animal species affect their environment too (the examples are many), and sometimes with devastating consequences - true. I guess the argument here is more about the scales of influence, which in the human case is global and omnipresent.

I also agree that the central point of this post was not exactly the factuality (or lack thereof) of climate change, or the anthropogenic vs natural cause for it. It was the fate of a small nation in the middle of the Pacific. I know that the former is the more general and more important issue and I understand why it is being focused upon. But I would also appreciate if we could talk a little about Kiribati. too. =)

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

our dis-balance within the ecosystem is the result of our population size. as devastating as it may be in some case, its entirely natural (unless you posit that humans did not evolve here).

there must be some technological solution to the kiribati's situation. build dykes?

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I am afraid it wouldn't work... In order to build dykes you need to have some stable land to hook them to. Like in Holland.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

how about a floating island?

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I linked to one such proposition by a Belgian engineer, and it sounds nice and all... but is too expensive at this point. Kiribati cannot afford it.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

something tells me the belgian engineer is overpriced.

also, maybe they could get funding from OPEC :)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Eh, I think humans aren't alone in this, necessarily, we're just the species that does it most thoroughly. Elephants literally deforest entire regions, and there are areas where life went extinct from overstretching the ecosystem without human action. I think it's not even the omnipresent nature of human influence so much as that unlike say, ants, humans are large primates which leads to an influence that belies anything one would necessarily expect. I wonder how much influence archaic hominins like Neanderthal man had on the environment, come to think of it?

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Ecosystems, and virtually all natural systems are in a constant state of flux, (forces that are never perfectly balanced out). Life spreads here, diminishes there, weather patterns change, topology changes, any number of factors change, causing deleterious effects to some aspects and beneficial effects to others.

That's not an argument in favor of recklessness, only to say that human activity in many ways isn't any more or less unbalancing than any number of non-human forces, and are no less 'natural' for it.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> i just find it curious when people consider human influence to be 'un-natural'.


This is a common usage.

"Is this mound a natural formation? No, is is a burial mound."

Yes, of course, in a real sense, humans are part of nature, and thus all the things that humans do are 'natural'. But words have different meanings in different contexts. In this context we want to differentiate between those things that came to be with, as opposed to without, human intervention.

For instance... Diamonds. For a long time we have made things that LOOK like diamonds, but are made of other stuff. These were often called artificial diamonds.

But now, we can actually make DIAMOND, in a materials engineering sense. But people still differentiate between laboratory produced diamonds, and 'natural' diamonds.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

common usage does not make it accurate. its probably leftover from a time when we saw humans as separate from nature.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> common usage does not make it accurate.

It is not only a common use, it is the primary accepted usage.

To wit, the Oxford American English dictionary, definition #1,

"existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind:"

So, as far as anyone can say that a certain word accurately has a certain meaning, the usage of "Natural" as an opposite to Man-Made, is accurate.

Dictionary definition aside, it is enough for some that they can derive the intended meaning from context, and respond in good faith to the intent.

> its probably leftover from a time when we saw humans as separate from nature.

No, its left over from NOW, when we need a good word to differentiate between those objects and phenomenon that arise spontaneously, as oppose to those that arise from human intervention. The need for this distinction comes up over and over again, in geology, archaeology, Law, politics, what have you.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

it is certainly not accurate from a scientific perspective.

now is left over from the past.

'man made' is a pretty useful distinction.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> it is certainly not accurate from a scientific perspective.

Of course it is, because this is how it is used in many Scientific contexts. Geologists talk about "Natural Gas" for instance, in opposition to things like "Town Gas", which is very similar, but made by human intervention. We speak of "Natural selection", as opposed to "Artificial Selection". What do you think is meant by the term "Natural History", as opposed to, say, just "History"?

The word has other scientific and specialized usages... such as a "Natural logarithm", which have nothing to do with the man-made versus spontaneous dichotomy.

You'll have to get used to words having multiple meanings, ALL of which might be correct in different contexts. In this case, the usage of the word is common, accepted, and obvious, so why do you quibble?

[usekh.livejournal.com]

What a complete bit of nonsensical rhetoric. You are not Humpty Dumpty you don't get to redefine the meaning of words because they don't suit you.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

human influence is not un-natural, unless you believe humans are not naturally occurring on earth.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

If you fail to understand basic terms, you really shouldn't keep on arguing them.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

that comment is ironic.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Only if you don't understand what scientists, anthropologists, and pretty much every expert means by natural.

Just tell me, what level of education have you achieved to be so sure you are right?